Tag Archives: Rules for Radicals

Hillary Clinton was soundly defeated on 8 Nov, losing to Donald Trump in an Electoral College blowout 232 to 306, with 270 needed to win. Now, consistent with the Anaconda Strategy, Green Party leftist candidate Jill Stein is leading a Democrat effort to overturn the will of the American People by demanding a recount ofthe results in MI, PA and WI.

NOTE: She isnt worried about challenging any states that Hillary narrowly won (ex. NH, NV or MN)!

The Stein/Hillary challenge also highlights the hypocrisy of the democrat party and Minion Media. From the last debate on 19 Oct, when candidate Trump stated his reluctance to blindly accept any election result, Hillary and her machine eviscerated Trump for attacking the heart of Americas democracy.

According to the left wing HuffPo on 7 Nov, not accepting the results could result in:

Undermining The Next President

Triggering Violence

Undermining Democracy

Has the HuffPo demanded Hillary accept the results? President Obama mocked Trump telling him to stop whining, and to accept the results. Is he telling Hillary to stop whining now? No!

No need for that, as Hillary and the progressive movement follow the Saul Alinsky model, which allows 11 extensions of Machiavellis The Ends Justifies the Means. Accepting election results is only for republicans who get beat, not for democrats. Thr

The Anaconda Strategy exposes that democrats resist at every turn to prevent the uncoiling of the Progressive Agenda. To that end, they can make any charge, invent any story, demand any recount to stay in power.

This is just the beginning of the Holding Phase. Hillary and Stein will fail, but the energy and money put into this hopeless effort only shows the strength of their authoritarian convictions.

Recent race riots in America focused attention on poor black communities and the meme that US police departments are racist and doing everything they can to single out innocent black men for arrest, incarceration, or frequently to murder them. What this event, or series of events, has also done is expose another Alinsky tactic being employed by Democrats and their progressive supporters.

What Americans hear from the left and from race baiters like Al Sharpton is how terrible and racist the police are. We see only one depiction of the police from “Minion Media” descriptions and its one that most Americans don’t agree with or recognize. Most of us understand the vast majority of law enforcement officers are brave, honorable men and women who dedicate their lives in protection of the communities they serve. It’s a dangerous line of work, often thankless, but they do it because they love this country and they feel a calling to serve much like those in the United States military. So why is it, that in discussions about the police, the Democrat party can only attack, denigrate, and destroy our Police? The result of this relentless denigration, officers are under attack, singled out and executed in growing numbers. The radical leftists in this country are so anti-police that in Ferguson Missouri, and most recently in Baltimore the US Attorney General’s officewas sent in with the goal of federalizing those departments in the name of social justice. So far, more than 20police departments have met the same federal control.

When so much that the left in America does draws its inspiration from notorious America-hater Saul Alinsky, it’s no wonder that this relentless attack upon police is a tactic straight out of the his Rules for Radicals. Alinsky teaches that once you pick a target you must demonize it, never admitting to, or allowing, any positive qualities of that target to get discussed.

“Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 per cent on the side of the devil. He knows that there can be no action until issues are polarized to this degree.”

It doesn’t matter how much they must exaggerate, lie, or outright fabricate events in order to create that devil, their radical ends justifies the means.

In Part-3, Alinsky’s tactics are summarized, along with his goal, or Objective. Just as President Obama told “Joe The Plumber” that he wanted to redistribute American wealth, Alinsky’s Objective was taking power from the Haves and giving it to the Have-Nots. Sounds like Hillary Clinton’s statement that the U.S. economy needed to“Topple the Wealthiest 1%“.

Although couched in his own terms, Alinsky teaches many “tactics” that come straight out of the Department of Defense’s Joint Doctrine, Joint Publication 3, called Principles of War.

Ex. If your numbers are small, “conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does.”Joint Doctrine – Economy of Force, Mass, and deception.

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Democrat politicians and their supporters are constantly ridiculing anybody who challenges them. Look at the lengths that they’ve gone to destroy Gov. Sarah Palin, even perpetuatinga myth that she said that she could see Russia from her house. Hand in hand with ridicule, according to Alinsky, is Satire.

“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”Joint Doctrine –Offensive

“If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.”

Alinsky teaches fighting as dirty as possible. “In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.”

“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” This one tactic is probably the most well known element of Alinsky’s teachings, and is one of the most used by the left. It not only attacks a defined enemy, but is used to find the next target…that being anybody or organization that comes to the defense of the original target. Is this intimidation why so many are silent when progressives go on the attack?

Although Saul Alinsky died in 1972, his Objective and teachings are gaining power in today’s radical left, progressives and the Democratic Party machine.

See Hillary Clinton/Saul Alinsky Letters. From Hillary: “Dear Saul, When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out, or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?”

“The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy”.”

Given Alinsky’s own words, it isn’t hard to see why so many on the left considered then Senator Obama a savior. As a self-professed professional “community organizer”, an Alinsky acolyte, Obama was, in leftist circles, literally a “great creator”.

Alinsky teaches that there are three types/groups of people in the world (Alinsky’s Words in Bold and Italics):

– “The Have-Nots” Democrats exploit this group of Americans the most, advancing progressive policies designed to make and keep them dependent upon government. Minorities, women and children top their list.

– “The Have-a Little, Want-Mores” This group of Americans is basically the middle class.

– “The Haves” During the Obama administration Democrats branded these Americans as the “1%”. President Obama himself seems to believe that you become the 1% when your income grows to $250K/year. Most of the Democrat Political leadership (Clintons, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Deblasio, Gore, etc.) is extremely wealthy, as are their donors (George Soros, Hollywood Actors/Actresses/Directors, Union Bosses, etc.). As shown in my previous Alinsky post, there is no such thing as hypocrisy to Alinskyites.

Look for progressive policies couched in these three groups. It’s essential that they be pitted against one another, agitated, insulted, discredited and stirred up for the organizer to move his/her agenda. Division, not unity, is Alinsky’s calling card.

COMPROMISE: The clarion call of the progressive, and an essential component to a successful radical. How often do we hear politicians, in both parties, talking about compromise, as if that is the only thing that matters. Compromising where one’s principles must be abandoned, one’s security is dimished, or one’s country weakened, isn’t a good deal at all. Obama’s Iranian negotiations stand as a prime example.

“to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you’re 30 per cent ahead.”

CONFLICT:

“Conflict is the essential core of a free and open society.” Alinsky teaches how to create it. Ferguson, MO is a case study in how it’s done, and how devastating its effects can be.

My final blog in this Alinsky series will contain the specific tactics Alinsky teaches organizers to employ.

Saul Alinsky is the criminal mastermind behind today’s Democrat Party machine and his radical lessons are in play each and every day. Many people have heard about his book Rules for Radicals, but most don’t want, or have time to read it, and for good reason. Well, now you don’t have to. A series of 3 posts will summarize his major teachings, which constitute the progressive movement’s American “play book”, and they follow it religiously!

Machiavelli’s major weakness was his blindness “to the necessity for moral clothing to all acts and motives.”

“All effective actions require the passport of morality.”

“Morality, so-called, becomes the continuum as self interests shift.”

“Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.”

Alinsky teaches 11 variations on Machiavelli’s “The Ends Justify the Means.” With this many variations, what actions CAN’T be justified? Practical examples in the Democrat Party abound.How about Harry Reid justifying his lies on the Senate floor during the 2012 campaign when he claimed that Romney did not pay taxes? Reid’s “ends justify the means” morality: “Romney didn’t win, did he?”

Alinsky’s 11 Rules of Ethics of Means and Ends: Nuances to “The Ends Justify the Means”

“One’s Concerns with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.”

“The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.”

“In war the end justifies almost any means.”

“Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.”

“Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.”

“The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.”

“Generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.”

“The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”

“Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.”

“You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.”

“Goals must be phrased in general terms like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”,”Of the Common Welfare”,”Pursuit of Happiness”, or “Bread and Peace.”

Latest – 15 March, 2017: “A citizens initiative called Stop Operation Soros has also published a white paper alleging U.S. money has been funding violent riots in the streets, as well as a Macedonian version of Saul Alinskys far-left handbook Rules for Radicals.” Fox News